Question.4860 - 7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case Study Previous Next View topic instructions.In 2012, a dispute arose over a photograph of a tranquilized bear falling from a tree. Andy Duann, an engineering student at the University of Colorado and on the staff of the school newspaper, took the photo and, asserting copyright, sold the image to Camera magazine. The photo quickly went viral. The school newspaper, the CU Independent, claimed that they owned the photograph and that Camera magazine should have paid them for the right to use the photo, and not the photographer, since he was on the newspaper staff. Duann, however, had joined the newspaper mid-semester and had not yet signed a contract when he took the photo.What do you think? Based on module content and without further researching the case, who do you think had the right to sell the photo? Support your answer.Start a New ThreadDiscussionFilter by:All ThreadsTop of FormSort by:Most Recent Activity Least Recent Activity Newest Thread Oldest Thread Author First Name A-Z Author First Name Z-A Author Last Name A-Z Author Last Name Z-A Subject A-Z Subject Z-A Bottom of FormTop of FormCopyright Case StudyContains unread postsEric Meeks posted Mar 11, 2025 7:27 PMSubscribeI would say that there could be a chance that the photographer had a chance to sell the image. yes, you could say he was "employed" by the school paper, but no documentation was signed or given to the photographer on what he could and could not do. For argument's sake the paper can argue that he was instructed to go photograph what was going on for the paper and so the paper would have the rights to the image. more2 Unread2Unread2 Replies2Replies4 Views4ViewsView profile card for Eric MeeksLast post March 12 at 3:59 PM by Eric Meeks7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsAria Borealis posted Mar 11, 2025 7:48 PMSubscribeWithout a written contract or explicit work-for-hire agreement, Duann, as the creator of the photograph, likely retained full copyright. Thus, he had the right to sell the photo to Camera magazine. The CU Independent’s claim of ownership would only be valid if it could prove an established agreement or employment relationship transferring copyright from Duann to the newspaper.more2 Unread2Unread2 Replies2Replies10 Views10ViewsView profile card for Jessica JailallLast post March 13 at 7:50 PM by Jessica Jailall7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsMark Teale Vucinich posted Mar 12, 2025 4:17 PMSubscribeI personally believe that Andy Duann owned the rights to sell the photo. I say this, because there was yet to be a contract signed between him and his schools newspaper staff. Without a contract, there is no written or official agreement that the newspaper staff can take responsibility for the photo, thus they shouldn't be compensated for it. If Andy had signed a contract before taking the photo, then this would be a different story. However, without a written agreement, Andy holds full rights to the photo and he should be the one who gets paid.more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies2 Views2ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post March 13 at 7:38 AM by Christopher Braun7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsAdeline Greenleaf posted Mar 13, 2025 7:50 AMSubscribeBased on the information provided and general copyright laws from this module, it seems like Andy Duann, as the photographer, had the right to sell the photo, not the CU Independent. Copyright law usually gives ownership to the creator of the work, unless there’s a contract that states otherwise. Since Duann never signed a contract with the CU Independent before taking the photo, there was no official agreement transferring his rights to the newspaper. Without a signed contract, it would be hard for the CU Independent to claim ownership of the image. more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies4 Views4ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post March 13 at 8:00 AM by Christopher Braun7.2Contains unread postsLeslie Boyle posted Mar 13, 2025 10:15 AMSubscribeI think Andy Duann had the right to sell the photo since he hadn't signed a contract with the CU Independent when he took it. Without that agreement, he retained the copyright.more0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies1 Views1Views7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsJessica Jailall posted Mar 13, 2025 10:33 PMSubscribeAndy Duann, the photographer who captured the photo has complete rights in terms of copyright. I’m not sure why the school paper claimed that they owned the photograph and should have been paid by the magazine to use it. I wonder if this could be possible if the photo was taken on school grounds, captured with the school’s device, or if the school established a work-for-hire agreement with Andy Duann. There’s no clear information about any of these other than he hadn’t signed a contract yet when he took the photo. I think that is what makes it clear that Andy Duann had the right to sell the photo as it is deemed his. more0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies1 Views1Views7.2 CopyrightContains unread postsCadee Couvillion posted Mar 14, 2025 1:14 PMSubscribeBased on the information provided, and what I know based on module content, Andy Duann had the right to sell the photograph since he had not signed a contract with the CU Independent at the time. Without an agreement transferring copyright, he retained ownership under copyright law. The newspaper's claim would only be valid if a contract explicitly stated that staff work belonged to them.more0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies1 Views1Views7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsLuis Franchi posted Mar 14, 2025 3:10 PMSubscribeI believe Andy Duann had the right to sell the photo because he hadn’t signed a contract with the CU Independent when he took it. Without a contract, there was nothing stating that his work belonged to the newspaper, so the copyright should stay with him as the photographer.From what I understand about copyright, the creator of an image owns it unless there’s an agreement that transfers ownership. Since Duann took the photo himself and wasn’t officially bound to the newspaper at that time, I don’t see how they could claim rights over it.The CU Independent might have assumed they owned the image just because he was working with them, but without a signed contract, I don’t think they had any legal claim. Camera magazine did the right thing by paying Duann directly because, in my opinion, he was the rightful owner of the photograph.more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies1 Views1ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post Sat at 9:06 AM by Christopher Braun7.2 Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsShariah Brevard posted Mar 14, 2025 3:13 PMSubscribeBased on U.S. copyright law, it is possible that Andy Duann had the right to sell the photograph. Copyright generally belongs to the actual creator unless a written agreement shares ownership. Since Duann took the photo, he is the appropriate owner unless verified otherwise. At the time he captured the image, Duann had not signed a contract with the CU Independent, indicating there was no proper agreement gifting the newspaper ownership of his work. Also, the "work-for-hire" principle does not apply because Duann was not a formal employee, and without a written contract defining otherwise, his position as a student photographer more closely matches with that of an independent contractor. Independent contractors typically retain the rights to their products unless an detailed agreement states otherwise. Given these aspects, Duann probably held the copyright and had the legal right to sell the photograph to Camera magazine.more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies3 Views3ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post Sat at 8:40 AM by Christopher Braunnice work so far, everyoneContains unread postsChristopher Braun posted Mar 15, 2025 9:16 AMSubscribecheck out some links I posted in my Front Porch about the copyright issue0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies1 Views1Views7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsAlexus Sorenson posted Mar 15, 2025 11:40 AMSubscribeBased on the given information, Andy Duann likely had the right to sell the photograph. Copyright law generally grants ownership of a creative work to the person who creates it, unless there is a prior agreement stating otherwise—such as an employment contract that assigns copyright to an employer. Since Duann had not signed a contract with the CU Independent at the time he took the photo, there was no formal agreement transferring ownership of his work to the newspaper. Therefore, Duann retained the copyright and had the legal right to sell the image to Camera magazine. The CU Independent’s claim would have been stronger if Duann had signed a contract before taking the photo, explicitly stating that any work he created for the newspaper was owned by them.more0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies1 Views1Views7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsJose Sanchez posted Mar 15, 2025 3:42 PMSubscribeWith the information provided CU Independent technically would have the right to the photo that Andy have taken. That if they had made Andy sign the contract beforehand that transfers his rights to the CU. Because of their mistake, Andy still had the right to the photo and any other photo he taken before. That why when needed contract like this are sign before you start working at a creative industry. more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies1 Views1ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post yesterday at 10:25 AM by Christopher Braun7.2 CopyrightContains unread postsWhitney Kiesel posted Mar 15, 2025 10:56 PMSubscribeWith the information provided, I think Andy has the rights the the image and was able to sell it to the Camera magazine. He took the image and sold it before the contract was signed with CU Independent which means he and only he has the right to the image. The contract is only valid after it's signed. So all projects and materials before are to the right of the photographer and he can make the decision to sell it to whomever.more0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies1 Views1Views7.2 Copyright Case StudyContains unread postsJezebelle White posted Mar 17, 2025 9:36 AMSubscribeBased on the information given it appears that Andy retains the right to the image.Since he took the photograph before any contract was sign he should be allowed to choose what he wants to do with the image.Nothing of his projects before signing that contract with CU belong to anyone but him.So given that I think he has every right to do what he likes with projects and photos with what he has before the signing.But I the case if it was afterwards then it would be a different outcome.more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies2 Views2ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post yesterday at 10:23 AM by Christopher BraunCopyright Case StudyContains unread postsChloe Schafer posted Mar 17, 2025 12:12 PMSubscribeBased on the facts presented in the claim, I believe that Andy Duann would have retained the rights to the image as no contract had been signed, and therefore Duann was not contractually bound to allow the school newspaper ownership of the image. If Duann had signed the contract prior to taking the photo then it would be a different argument, but the contract is the vital point of this copyright case study.more1 Unread1Unread1 Replies1Replies2 Views2ViewsView profile card for Christopher BraunLast post yesterday at 1:30 PM by Christopher BraunBalfour_7.2 [Discussion] Copyright Case StudyRaelyn Balfour posted Mar 18, 2025 6:49 AMSubscribedHello professor and everyone else, based on my understanding from graphic designer's perspective, Andy Duann - the photographer (to be the creator - to whom the copyrights ownership should automatically be granted, because he is creator of original work), but work-for-hire agreement complicate the standards; wherein considering freelance or contract-based graphic design, ownership rights are often explicitly defined in contracts. If Duann had signed a contract with CU Independent stating that his work for the newspaper was considered "work-for-hire," in that scenario the copyright would belong to the publication, but from the case study provided in the module - Duann seem to have not signed any such contract, so there is no formal transfer of copyright from the creator to the institution. In scenario, if Duan had sold the photo to Camera magazine under a specific licensing agreement, then Camera magazine would legally have the right to utilize and distribute the photo according to their terms of that license, but here without any sort of prior agreement withe the CU Independent granting them ownership - Duann sustains the copyright as the creator.Lastly, I would like to add that protecting one's intellectual property through clear contracts is critical, drawing parallels with the case that emphasizes the necessity for designers and photographers alike to formalize their rights and agreements to avoid legal disputes; I believe that Duan had the right to sell the photo because, without a contract or written agreement stating otherwise, the default copyright law favors the original creator.more0 Unread0Unread0 Replies0Replies0 Views0ViewsBottom of Form /1Start a New ThreadPrevious Next Activity DetailsTop of FormWell done! You have contributed to the discussion Bottom of FormTop of Form Due March 18 at 11:59 PM Available on Mar 5, 2025 12:00 AM. Submission restricted before availability starts.Bottom of FormLast Visited Mar 18, 2025 6:48 AM

Answer Below: